<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Thanksgiving</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/</link>
	<description>Random samplings from a universe of ideas.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 01:26:39 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dave A. (Dr. EBeam)</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/comment-page-1/#comment-52312</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave A. (Dr. EBeam)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 00:55:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/#comment-52312</guid>
		<description>Regarding the &quot;force&quot; due to the exclusion principle.
Someone once explained it to me (I think it was either Kurt Gottfried or Victor Weiskopf) that the exclusion principle creates a pressure, which keeps things from passing right through each other.  That pressure can be thought of as due to the kinetic energy of the electrons.  As one tries to compress the electrons, their kinetic energy increases.  Similarly, trying to put more electrons (or atoms with electrons) in the same space, will increase the kinetic energy of the electrons.  

The kinetic energy increases because the energy levels depend on the volume the electrons are allowed to occupy.  A smaller volume (or more electrons in the same volume) will increase the total energy of the system.  For some reason, we like to think of a force as arising from a potential energy, but we have no problem with a pressure being due to the kinetic energy of a gas.  The exclusion principle is just the pressure due to the kinetic energy of the electrons--which increases  when they are compressed.  (It&#039;s a wave-function thing, not dependent on temperature.)

-Dave</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding the &#8220;force&#8221; due to the exclusion principle.<br />
Someone once explained it to me (I think it was either Kurt Gottfried or Victor Weiskopf) that the exclusion principle creates a pressure, which keeps things from passing right through each other.  That pressure can be thought of as due to the kinetic energy of the electrons.  As one tries to compress the electrons, their kinetic energy increases.  Similarly, trying to put more electrons (or atoms with electrons) in the same space, will increase the kinetic energy of the electrons.  </p>
<p>The kinetic energy increases because the energy levels depend on the volume the electrons are allowed to occupy.  A smaller volume (or more electrons in the same volume) will increase the total energy of the system.  For some reason, we like to think of a force as arising from a potential energy, but we have no problem with a pressure being due to the kinetic energy of a gas.  The exclusion principle is just the pressure due to the kinetic energy of the electrons&#8211;which increases  when they are compressed.  (It&#8217;s a wave-function thing, not dependent on temperature.)</p>
<p>-Dave</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pat Dennis</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/comment-page-1/#comment-50121</link>
		<dc:creator>Pat Dennis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:25:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/#comment-50121</guid>
		<description>Matt  --  Nothing here specifically for iPhone, but try these:

http://www.particlezoo.net/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM
... and especially:  http://www.particleadventure.org/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Matt  &#8212;  Nothing here specifically for iPhone, but try these:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.particlezoo.net/" rel="nofollow">http://www.particlezoo.net/</a><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j50ZssEojtM</a><br />
&#8230; and especially:  <a href="http://www.particleadventure.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.particleadventure.org/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/comment-page-1/#comment-50102</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:07:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/#comment-50102</guid>
		<description>Thanks, Sean, that helped clear up some confusion I&#039;ve always had over force particles. Now what I&#039;d love is if someone would put the bestiary into an iPhone app, preferably with little visualizations for each particle to show my kids when they ask me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Sean, that helped clear up some confusion I&#8217;ve always had over force particles. Now what I&#8217;d love is if someone would put the bestiary into an iPhone app, preferably with little visualizations for each particle to show my kids when they ask me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl Brannen</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/comment-page-1/#comment-50044</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl Brannen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 03:53:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/#comment-50044</guid>
		<description>Neil,

You can use density matrices in something like 5 very much different ways. One of them is as you&#039;ve described. But you can also take the pure states that are used in state vectors and convert them into &quot;pure density matrices&quot;. These are exactly equivalent to the usual state vectors in terms of information content, except that state vectors have arbitrary complex phases that have no physical interpretation. (The physical uses of complex phase are shared with between density matrices, otherwise they wouldn&#039;t work.)

&quot;So I wonder what physical significance there would have to be to a DM formulation, considering it is “a way of looking at things” more than an actual situation of thing.&quot;

If you&#039;re interested in the actual thing (or ontology), rather than mathematical ways of describing activity, then you&#039;re probably interested in Bohmian mechanics. I&#039;ve linked to a paper that discusses density matrices with respect to Bohmian mechanics which was the first reference I saw on arXiv in 30 seconds, but there are a lot of more complete articles. It&#039;s an active field.

From the density matrix point of view, state vectors are a kluge that is done so that a quantum state can be converted from its natural bilinear condition, to an unnatural, but mathematically convenient linear one. The mathematical convenience is &quot;linear superposition&quot;, which is a principle that allows you to describe a large number of quantum states from taking linear combinations of other states, for example, the usual basis states in spin-1/2 of spin up and spin down.

Linear superposition (as opposed to interference) does not translate into a literal experiment that can be performed in the lab. That would be like taking, for example, combining a spin up electron with a spin down electron and expecting to get an electron oriented with spin in the x direction. You will not get this as a result. Instead, you will get two electrons and to model them you will require a more complicated state vector, i.e. ++, +-, -+, -- as basis. Of course interference works fine in density matrix calculations just like with state vectors.

The bilinearity of density matrices can be thought of as describing a quantum state in terms of how it acts as an operator. The pure density matrices are projection operators. This makes density matrices, rather than state vectors, the natural way to define the &quot;Consistent Histories&quot; interpretation of quantum mechanics (which generalizes QM to quantum cosmology). Read the article on consistent histories at Wikipedia, or do a search for arXiv articles.

So density matrices have an interpretation of quantum mechanics that is devoted to their use and avoids the state vector formalism. At the very least this makes density matrices the equal of state vectors but for those who prefer quantum mechanics that naturally fits into quantum cosmology, density matrices are superior. And their sign does not change when you swap particles in them.

Mathematically, this comes about because a density matrix is made from copies of the same state vector, a bra and a ket. When you swap two particles, you get a minus sign for the bra and a minus sign for the ket. Since (-1)(-1) = +1,  the density matrix is unchanged.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Neil,</p>
<p>You can use density matrices in something like 5 very much different ways. One of them is as you&#8217;ve described. But you can also take the pure states that are used in state vectors and convert them into &#8220;pure density matrices&#8221;. These are exactly equivalent to the usual state vectors in terms of information content, except that state vectors have arbitrary complex phases that have no physical interpretation. (The physical uses of complex phase are shared with between density matrices, otherwise they wouldn&#8217;t work.)</p>
<p>&#8220;So I wonder what physical significance there would have to be to a DM formulation, considering it is “a way of looking at things” more than an actual situation of thing.&#8221;</p>
<p>If you&#8217;re interested in the actual thing (or ontology), rather than mathematical ways of describing activity, then you&#8217;re probably interested in Bohmian mechanics. I&#8217;ve linked to a paper that discusses density matrices with respect to Bohmian mechanics which was the first reference I saw on arXiv in 30 seconds, but there are a lot of more complete articles. It&#8217;s an active field.</p>
<p>From the density matrix point of view, state vectors are a kluge that is done so that a quantum state can be converted from its natural bilinear condition, to an unnatural, but mathematically convenient linear one. The mathematical convenience is &#8220;linear superposition&#8221;, which is a principle that allows you to describe a large number of quantum states from taking linear combinations of other states, for example, the usual basis states in spin-1/2 of spin up and spin down.</p>
<p>Linear superposition (as opposed to interference) does not translate into a literal experiment that can be performed in the lab. That would be like taking, for example, combining a spin up electron with a spin down electron and expecting to get an electron oriented with spin in the x direction. You will not get this as a result. Instead, you will get two electrons and to model them you will require a more complicated state vector, i.e. ++, +-, -+, &#8212; as basis. Of course interference works fine in density matrix calculations just like with state vectors.</p>
<p>The bilinearity of density matrices can be thought of as describing a quantum state in terms of how it acts as an operator. The pure density matrices are projection operators. This makes density matrices, rather than state vectors, the natural way to define the &#8220;Consistent Histories&#8221; interpretation of quantum mechanics (which generalizes QM to quantum cosmology). Read the article on consistent histories at Wikipedia, or do a search for arXiv articles.</p>
<p>So density matrices have an interpretation of quantum mechanics that is devoted to their use and avoids the state vector formalism. At the very least this makes density matrices the equal of state vectors but for those who prefer quantum mechanics that naturally fits into quantum cosmology, density matrices are superior. And their sign does not change when you swap particles in them.</p>
<p>Mathematically, this comes about because a density matrix is made from copies of the same state vector, a bra and a ket. When you swap two particles, you get a minus sign for the bra and a minus sign for the ket. Since (-1)(-1) = +1,  the density matrix is unchanged.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neil B</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/comment-page-1/#comment-50001</link>
		<dc:creator>Neil B</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:16:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/#comment-50001</guid>
		<description>Carl Brannen, isn&#039;t it so that the &quot;density matrix&quot; is a sort of kludge representing uncertain knowledge of a wave function, it isn&#039;t considered to be a &quot;true&quot; representation of a given actual WF.  For example, I may have a source that emits linear polarized light, and I don&#039;t know the details of how they are made (maybe, I don&#039;t have a distinct linear filter available, maybe my assistant keeps turning it around, etc.)  But must I think that &quot;real waves&quot; can literally not have a definite polarization (unless entangled)?  So I wonder what physical significance there would have to be to a DM formulation, considering it is &quot;a way of looking at things&quot; more than an actual situation of thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Carl Brannen, isn&#8217;t it so that the &#8220;density matrix&#8221; is a sort of kludge representing uncertain knowledge of a wave function, it isn&#8217;t considered to be a &#8220;true&#8221; representation of a given actual WF.  For example, I may have a source that emits linear polarized light, and I don&#8217;t know the details of how they are made (maybe, I don&#8217;t have a distinct linear filter available, maybe my assistant keeps turning it around, etc.)  But must I think that &#8220;real waves&#8221; can literally not have a definite polarization (unless entangled)?  So I wonder what physical significance there would have to be to a DM formulation, considering it is &#8220;a way of looking at things&#8221; more than an actual situation of thing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pat Dennis</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/comment-page-1/#comment-49980</link>
		<dc:creator>Pat Dennis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:54:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/#comment-49980</guid>
		<description>Sean, this post was crystal-clear, as was the one on Hubble&#039;s Law.... but I&#039;d sure like to have seen something a little more accessible on the Lagrangian of the Standard Model of particle physics.  Four semesters of college physics, and calculus through elementary differential equations, didn&#039;t - in my case, at least - even come close to preparing me for that one!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sean, this post was crystal-clear, as was the one on Hubble&#8217;s Law&#8230;. but I&#8217;d sure like to have seen something a little more accessible on the Lagrangian of the Standard Model of particle physics.  Four semesters of college physics, and calculus through elementary differential equations, didn&#8217;t &#8211; in my case, at least &#8211; even come close to preparing me for that one!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl Brannen</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/comment-page-1/#comment-49970</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl Brannen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 18:01:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/#comment-49970</guid>
		<description>&quot;The answer is, Fermi statistics: when you take two identical fermions and switch them with each other, you get minus the state you started with.&quot;

This is true only for the state vector formalism of quantum mechanics. In density matrix formalism, the arbitrary complex phases are eliminated and exchanging two particles leaves one with the same density matrix state.

Since density matrices and state vectors give identical results in quantum mechanics, it is not possible to say which one is fundamental. Consequently, it cannot be said that swapping fermions changes a state.

From the density matrix point of view, a state vector is a sort of square root of a density matrix. It is not surprising that one must supply a phase (in analogy with the sign that arises with a square root). But if the fundamental nature is the density matrix (which can represent states that state vectors cannot and therefore are more general), then the minus sign that shows up when fermions are swapped is just an accident of mathematics, not a fundamental part of the physics. Instead, the difference between fermions and bosons is that the occupation numbers for fermions can only be 0 or 1 while bosons can count higher.

Google &quot;nine formulations of quantum mechanics&quot; for more info.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The answer is, Fermi statistics: when you take two identical fermions and switch them with each other, you get minus the state you started with.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is true only for the state vector formalism of quantum mechanics. In density matrix formalism, the arbitrary complex phases are eliminated and exchanging two particles leaves one with the same density matrix state.</p>
<p>Since density matrices and state vectors give identical results in quantum mechanics, it is not possible to say which one is fundamental. Consequently, it cannot be said that swapping fermions changes a state.</p>
<p>From the density matrix point of view, a state vector is a sort of square root of a density matrix. It is not surprising that one must supply a phase (in analogy with the sign that arises with a square root). But if the fundamental nature is the density matrix (which can represent states that state vectors cannot and therefore are more general), then the minus sign that shows up when fermions are swapped is just an accident of mathematics, not a fundamental part of the physics. Instead, the difference between fermions and bosons is that the occupation numbers for fermions can only be 0 or 1 while bosons can count higher.</p>
<p>Google &#8220;nine formulations of quantum mechanics&#8221; for more info.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ars Mathematica &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Thanks for Spin-Statistics Theorem</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/comment-page-1/#comment-49921</link>
		<dc:creator>Ars Mathematica &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Thanks for Spin-Statistics Theorem</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 04:20:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/#comment-49921</guid>
		<description>[...] little tradition where for each Thanksgiving Day they pick a physics result to be thankful for. This year they pick the spin-statistics theorem, which explains why elementary particles with half-integer [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] little tradition where for each Thanksgiving Day they pick a physics result to be thankful for. This year they pick the spin-statistics theorem, which explains why elementary particles with half-integer [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris W.</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/comment-page-1/#comment-49918</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris W.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Nov 2008 03:02:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/#comment-49918</guid>
		<description>As a matter of fact, Broyles did post a preprint in 2002 (last revised in Feb 2003). Its subject is also quite interesting:

&lt;a href=&quot;http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0207069&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;One Loop Vacuum Polarization without Infinities&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/a&gt; (hep-th/0207069)

&lt;blockquote&gt;A technique for avoiding infinite integrals in the calculation of the one-loop diagram contribution to the vacuum polarization component of an atomic energy level is presented. This makes renormalization unnecessary. Infinite integrals do not occur because, as it is shown, no delta functions are required for the Green&#039;s functions. Thus there are none to overlap. This procedure is shown to produce the same formula as the one obtained by dimensional renormalization.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

(But I digress...)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a matter of fact, Broyles did post a preprint in 2002 (last revised in Feb 2003). Its subject is also quite interesting:</p>
<p><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0207069" rel="nofollow"><b>One Loop Vacuum Polarization without Infinities</b></a> (hep-th/0207069)</p>
<blockquote><p>A technique for avoiding infinite integrals in the calculation of the one-loop diagram contribution to the vacuum polarization component of an atomic energy level is presented. This makes renormalization unnecessary. Infinite integrals do not occur because, as it is shown, no delta functions are required for the Green&#8217;s functions. Thus there are none to overlap. This procedure is shown to produce the same formula as the one obtained by dimensional renormalization.</p></blockquote>
<p>(But I digress&#8230;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fermi-Walker Public Transport</title>
		<link>http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/comment-page-1/#comment-49872</link>
		<dc:creator>Fermi-Walker Public Transport</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Nov 2008 15:53:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2008/11/27/thanksgiving-3/#comment-49872</guid>
		<description>The Arthur Broyles paper came out in 1999,
here is a link:   arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9906046</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Arthur Broyles paper came out in 1999,<br />
here is a link:   arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9906046</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
